JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The defendants have filed this appeal against the confirming decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction. 2. There is no dispute that the disputed plot Nos. 4820, 4821 and 4822 along with another plot had been purchased in the name of defendant No. 1 on 24-6-1949. According to the plaintiff's case the disputed property fell to the share of defendant No. 1 in a family partition. In 1972 one Brahmananda Naik had filed O. S. No. 273 of 1972 against defendant No. 1 for realisation of money which was decreed in favour of said Brahmananda Naik in Execution Case No. 117 of 19 76 the suit land was attached and in auction, the same was purchased by the decree-holder, Brahmananda Naik, himself. As the said Brahmananda Naik expired during the pendency of the execution case, his legal representatives got delivery of possession through Court on 11-2-1979. Subsequently, the said property was purchased by the plaintiffs by a registered document from the legal representatives of Brahmananda Naik on 26-12-1976. Since the defendants created disturbances in the possession of the plaintiffs, a suit for injunction was filed in the year 1980. 3. The defendants filed a joint written statement. It is claimed by the defendants that the property which was purchased by defendants No. 1 in 1949 was, in fact, joint family property and continued as such. They have denied about the alleged partition in the year 1960 and instead, claimed that there was a partition in the year 1976 but the disputed property continued as joint family property. It is alleged that a fraudulent suit had been filed wherein without actual service of summons, a decree was obtained and the property was sold in auction for a nominal price without service of notice on the defendants and in spite of the execution case the defendants continued in possession. 4. The trial Court came to hold that the defendants had sufficient knowledge about the pendency of the execution case as notice had been served. Though the trial Court held that the valuation of suit property could not be less than Rs. 10,000/-, yet it negatived the plea of the defendants regarding the alleged fraud and held that the auction sale was legal, valid and binding on the defendants. Though the trial Court held that the valuation of suit property could not be less than Rs. 10,000/-, yet it negatived the plea of the defendants regarding the alleged fraud and held that the auction sale was legal, valid and binding on the defendants. The trial Court further held that disputed plots had been purchased in the name of defendant No. 1, the same had been treated as joint family property and in a partition in the year 1960 the disputed plots 4820 and 4821 fell to the share of defendant No. 1, but plot No. 4822 continued as joint family property. ft was held that defendants 2 to 4 had three-fourth interest in the said plat No. 4822 corresponding to hal plot No. 5554, but as the defendants did not file any application under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC, it was not open to them to contend that the action sale was not binding on their interest. It was further found that there was valid delivery of possession and there was no fraud in the execution proceeding. The claim of the defendants that there was partition for the first time only in the year 1976 was negatived. It was also held that the suit was not barred under the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. 5. In appeal, the lower appellate Court held that there was no fraud in the execution case. It was further held that the disputed properties were the exclusive properties of defendant No. 1 and did not constitute a joint family property of all the defendants. It was also field that the suit was barred under the provisions of the Consolidation Act. 6. In the present Second Appeal, it has been contended that the Courts below should have held that there was fraud in the Execution Case in view of the fact that valuable property had been sold for a grossly inadequate consideration. It is further contended that the Courts below should have held that the partition took place in the year 1976 and the disputed property remained as joint family property. The question relating to the maintainability of the suit is also re-agitated. 7. It is further contended that the Courts below should have held that the partition took place in the year 1976 and the disputed property remained as joint family property. The question relating to the maintainability of the suit is also re-agitated. 7. The finding of the Courts below to the effect that the defendant No. 1 had notice of Execution Case appears to be borne out by the materials on record. In such view of the matter, it was open to the defendants to file an application under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC since they were persons interested to set aside the auction sale on the ground of fraud. While it is true that grossly inadequate consideration in an auction sale, specially where the decree-holder himself is the auction-purchaser, is indicative of fraud, the said question should not be permitted to be raised in a collateral proceeding specially when defendant No. 1 had notice of the earlier Execution Case and could have challenged the auction. 8. Even then the question remains as to whether the interest of defendants 2 to 4 passed in the auction sale. If it is held that defendants 2. to 4 had interest in the property; they would not be bound by the auction sale in the execution of a decree which was against defendant No. 1 alone. Of course, defendant No. 1 would be bound by such auction sale. Therefore, the main question to be decided is as to whether defendants 2 to 4 had interest in the disputed property. Though the trial Court held that defendants 2 to 4 had three-fourth interest in plot No. 4822, the lower appellate Court seems to have held otherwise. It has been held by the lower appellate Court that the disputed property had fallen to the share of defendant No. 1. On consideration of materials on record, the lower appellate Court held that defendant No. 1 was in exclusive possession of the properties and though one of the plots namely, plot No. 4822 was recorded jointly in the names of all the defendants in the year 1967-68, yet, the same had also fallen to the share of defendant No. 1. On consideration of materials on record, the lower appellate Court held that defendant No. 1 was in exclusive possession of the properties and though one of the plots namely, plot No. 4822 was recorded jointly in the names of all the defendants in the year 1967-68, yet, the same had also fallen to the share of defendant No. 1. The very fact that the other defendants namely, defendants 2 to 4 did not raise any objection at the time of attachment and sale of the properties is indicative of the fact that they were not interested in the properties, obviously because the disputed property had fallen to the share of defendant No. 1. The case of the partion in the year 1976 in respect of other properties has not been accepted by both the Courts below for adequate reasons. The various materials on record clearly indicate that defendant No. 1 alone was the owner of the disputed property. As such, defendants 2 to 4 had no interest in the said property at the time the property was sold in the Execution Case. The finding of the Courts below that the suction purchaser got delivery of possession being essentially a finding of fact and based on discussion of materials on record, is not available to be challenged in Second Appeal. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiffs had got title and possession after purchasing the property from the decree-holder-auction-purchaser. 9. It was also contended that the suit was not maintainable in view of Sections. 4(4) and 51 of the Consolidation Act. The Courts below did not accept such contention of the footing that such suit for injunction was maintainable. Though there is some divergence of opinion as to whether a suit for injunction simplicitor would be maintainable during pendency of consolidation proceeding, it is, not necessary to decide such question in the present case inasmuch as, during pendency of the suit and the appeal, consolidation proceedings have been finalised and the disputed property has ultimately been recorded in the name of the plaintiffs-respondents as evident from the record-of-right and the decision of the appellate authority under the Consolidation Act, which have been filed by way of additional evidence by the plaintiffs-respondents. Since the order passed and the R. O. R. issued by the appropriate consolidation authorities came during the pendency of the litigation, these documents are taken as additional evidence in exercise of power under Order 41, Rule 27. CPC. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this Second Appeal, which is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed